>"This is a pretty common strategy. Many companies have poor record retention and backup policies because it's in their best interest to "forget" the things they do."
Yep.
From a slightly less nefarious angle, retention costs and servicing discovery requests costs more. It's in your best interest to minimize what's retained even if you don't need to "forget" anything in particular.
I'm not sure how it's less nefarious from a discovery viewpoint as I said below. It's just a cheat, a hack, albeit a commonly accepted one. It would hold no water in an effective and optimally-run business - so it goes that since you are not legally obligated to operate as effective and optimal as against outsiders, only shareholders (and even then only competently), your ineffectiveness and in-optimalness but purposeful conduct is shielded from liability.
In other words, the best run business for your shareholders is somehow demonstrated by being a pain in the ass for the public than it is as actually being a better run company by objective internal standards.
Don't get me wrong, great strategy that works and anyone who runs a business should continue to follow it lest they want to be ousted for cause, but sad reality that it's the state of things.
Don't get me wrong, great strategy that works and anyone who runs a business should continue to follow it lest they want to be ousted for cause, but sad reality that it's the state of things.
Comments
>"This is a pretty common strategy. Many companies have poor record retention and backup policies because it's in their best interest to "forget" the things they do."
Yep.
From a slightly less nefarious angle, retention costs and servicing discovery requests costs more. It's in your best interest to minimize what's retained even if you don't need to "forget" anything in particular.
I'm not sure how it's less nefarious from a discovery viewpoint as I said below. It's just a cheat, a hack, albeit a commonly accepted one. It would hold no water in an effective and optimally-run business - so it goes that since you are not legally obligated to operate as effective and optimal as against outsiders, only shareholders (and even then only competently), your ineffectiveness and in-optimalness but purposeful conduct is shielded from liability.
In other words, the best run business for your shareholders is somehow demonstrated by being a pain in the ass for the public than it is as actually being a better run company by objective internal standards.
Don't get me wrong, great strategy that works and anyone who runs a business should continue to follow it lest they want to be ousted for cause, but sad reality that it's the state of things.
Huh?